are you happy in false realitly?

Such thought experiments which evoke Godel's ( not God's* ) incompleteness theorem should reveal the flaws in any absolutist claims about the words "reality" and "existence", yet how many have the ability to muster such thoughts ? If we accept Godel's implication that there can be no ultimate axioms about reality and existence, we are surely left with the pragmatists position that such concepts are merely useful for joint human enterprise, dependent on specific contexts. They may be considered as "the ball" in assorted ball( =language) games, whose form is dependent on the particular game being played.

* Berkeley's requirement that "God is the ultimate observer" is a "completeness theorem" antithetical to Godel's "incompleteness theorem".
This underscores the point that absolutist claims about existence and reality are no different to religious ones.

Godel's incompleteness, and completeness, theorem deals with languages that are capable of basic arithmetic and provability; applying it to anything that involves reality or existence is stupid

Yes, "ultimately" all conceptual constructions are illusory. The important difference is between useful constructions/distinctions and misleading and useless constructions/distinctions.

Yes, it looks like Godel was indeed a believer,(... and Heidegger was a Nazi and Newton was an alchemist... etc) This might call for another thread on the separation of the man from the idea.

Only if you are a naive realist who fails to realize that all "objects" are "mental".

"Physical reality" tends to imply what appear to be persistent or repetitive states of affairs which involve the five senses directly, or indirectly via transducers (such as radio wave detectors). Pragmatically, we tend to think of such states as observer independent, but the categorization of "statehood" ( such as "the color green", or "the hardness of rock") is obviously dependent on a hypothetical standard observer whether present or not. Such observer dependent states should not be confused with the realists' word "properties" which implies that there exist "objects " possessing them. Those who actually contemplate the issue might conclude, as others already have, that "properties" amount to statements of our expectations about our interactive relationships with aspects of "our world".

It is the abstract persistence of words like "rock", which tends pragmatically to be interpreted as the concrete persistence of "a thing". But in essence, all is in flux including us, and the molecules of "the rock". What actually persists is our confidence in "the rock" as part of a state of affairs in which "a rock" can be potentially utilized (as a hammer, a weight, a missile etc). (Reference: Heidegger Zuhandenheit " Ready to Hand"). Thus "being" always implies the process of dynamic inter-activeness NOT static "is-ness".

Only if you are a naive realist who fails to realize that all "objects" are "mental".

I wrote this on page 2

Quote:

"Physical reality" tends to imply what appear to be persistent or repetitive states of affairs which involve the five senses directly, or indirectly via transducers (such as radio wave detectors). Pragmatically, we tend to think of such states as observer independent, but the categorization of "statehood" ( such as "the color green", or "the hardness of rock") is obviously dependent on a hypothetical standard observer whether present or not. Such observer dependent states should not be confused with the realists' word "properties" which implies that there exist "objects " possessing them. Those who actually contemplate the issue might conclude, as others already have, that "properties" amount to statements of our expectations about our interactive relationships with aspects of "our world".

It is the abstract persistence of words like "rock", which tends pragmatically to be interpreted as the concrete persistence of "a thing". But in essence, all is in flux including us, and the molecules of "the rock". What actually persists is our confidence in "the rock" as part of a state of affairs in which "a rock" can be potentially utilized (as a hammer, a weight, a missile etc). (Reference: Heidegger Zuhandenheit " Ready to Hand"). Thus "being" always implies the process of dynamic inter-activeness NOT static "is-ness".

You ought to be ashamed that you are offering your views this way in a forum dedicated to philosophy

That's priceless Frank !

Quote:

You ought to be ashamed that you are offering your views this way in a forum dedicated to philosophy

....said the celebrated textbook exemplar of what Freud called projection of one's own behavior.

I feel I've just been savaged by a dead sheep.

As Dennis Healey (UK politician) once remarked about criticism from one of the opposition ...

Quote:

I feel I've just been savaged by a dead sheep.